[Archived] News comment

[thenodrog]

I voted for the Party as I have in every election since 1970.

Obviously you are voting through indoctrination rather that which would govern the country best.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I'm not even going bother replying to that.

[jim mk2]

Obviously you are voting through indoctrination rather that which would govern the country best.

I assume then that you voted for Tony Blair in 1997 ?

[yoda]

Interesting then that Milliband wants to govern like Thatcher and not Blair, not sure what entity he is referring to when he says he wants to govern, maybe the local women's institute, scout group or the like

[Guest Norbert]

Maybe he wants to have big hair, bully his cabinet and beat up some miners. To be serious, perhaps Ed means he wants to be someone who has strong principles and you know where they stand, rather than being a nebulous, flash gimmick throwing snake oil merchant on the make.

[yoda]

Maybe he wants to have big hair, bully his cabinet and beat up some miners. To be serious, perhaps Ed means he wants to be someone who has strong principles and you know where they stand, rather than being a nebulous, flash gimmick throwing snake oil merchant on the make.

He has got a lot of prep to do then

[thenodrog]

Maybe he wants to have big hair, bully his cabinet and beat up some miners. To be serious, perhaps Ed means he wants to be someone who has strong principles and you know where they stand, rather than being a nebulous, flash gimmick throwing snake oil merchant on the make.

Little Ed? Crikey..... He'll never pull that one off! He's like a boy scout.

[Guest Norbert]

Yep, I agree. Thatcher had real gravitas and authority, whatever you think of her politics. Poor Ed just looks like an overgrown school boy.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Yep, I agree. Thatcher had real gravitas and authority, whatever you think of her politics. Poor Ed just looks like an overgrown school boy.

He's not a megalomaniac though.

[yoda]

He's not a megalomaniac though.

he has not tasted power yet

[thenodrog]

He's not a megalomaniac though.

megalomania

noun

... an unnaturally strong wish for power and control, or the belief that you are very much more important and powerful than you really are.

I'd suggest that definition fits Tony Blair rather more than Mrs Thatcher. She really did punch above her weight and especially in the international arena. Anybody old enough will recall that Margaret Thatcher pulled Ronald Reagan's strings whereas George W pulled Tony Blairs.

[yoda]

I'm not even going bother replying to that.

Spoil sport, there is a lot to be said for bun fights

megalomania

noun

... an unnaturally strong wish for power and control, or the belief that you are very much more important and powerful than you really are.

I'd suggest that definition fits Tony Blair rather more than Mrs Thatcher. She really did punch above her weight and especially in the international arena. Anybody old enough will recall that Margaret Thatcher pulled Ronald Reagan's strings whereas George W pulled Tony Blairs.

I can just imagine that puppet show on the front at Blackpool

[jim mk2]

According to Richard Aldous's well reseached account of the Thatcher-Reagan years, far from being bosom buddies the president and prime minister were at each other's throats most of the time. Reagan famously refused to back Britain in the Falklands conflict and then went behind Britain's back over the invasion of Grenada, which infuriated Thatcher. And if you want to know how the worldwide fiscal crisis started in 2008, look no farther than this pair of financial tsunami architects who decided to let casino capitalism rip in 1980. That's more than 30 years of fraudulent banking, and ordinary folk are paying the price.

[Al]

megalomania

noun

... an unnaturally strong wish for power and control, or the belief that you are very much more important and powerful than you really are.

I'd suggest that definition fits Tony Blair rather more than Mrs Thatcher. She really did punch above her weight and especially in the international arena. Anybody old enough will recall that Margaret Thatcher pulled Ronald Reagan's strings whereas George W pulled Tony Blairs.

Thatcher was certainly a megalomaniac of the first degree.

Read your post from a quote.

[Audax]

According to Richard Aldous's well reseached account of the Thatcher-Reagan years, far from being bosom buddies the president and prime minister were at each other's throats most of the time. Reagan famously refused to back Britain in the Falklands conflict and then went behind Britain's back over the invasion of Grenada, which infuriated Thatcher. And if you want to know how the worldwide fiscal crisis started in 2008, look no farther than this pair of financial tsunami architects who decided to let casino capitalism rip in 1980. That's more than 30 years of fraudulent banking, and ordinary folk are paying the price.

Falkland Islands sounds like one of those historical issues that one would have to research thoroughly.

New U.S. Documents Show Washington Sided with British in Early April 1982 While Publicly Declaring Neutrality CIA reports Describe Logistical Support and Detailed Intelligence on Argentine Forces

At a meeting in London on April 8, 1982, shortly after the war began, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher expressed concern to U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig about President Ronald Reagan's recent public statements of impartiality. In response, according to a previously secret memorandum of the conversation, "The Secretary said that he was certain the Prime Minister knew where the President stood. We are not impartial."

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB374/

This doesn't settle it either, I don't doubt you or this author either. As said, it sounds like one of those events that takes a lot of research.

--------------------------------------

To be fair, USA has to be a bit careful in Latin America to avoid appearing like a Yankee Imperialist even against a regime such as Argentina had with those Generals back then.

[thenodrog]

Thatcher was certainly a megalomaniac of the first degree.

Read your post from a quote.

You keep doing that..... why don't you just ignore it?

There really are some weird people about.

[Audax]

Mexico's Drug Mega-Kingpin captured, Chapo (Shorty) Guzman.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26308203

I hope he doesn't get a palatial jail cell as Escobar did in Colombia. I hope his money doesn't see him slip out from authorities.

[Guest Norbert]

I don't think he would get that sort of 'jail'. From what little I know of Mexico's drug lords, I think the government is really trying to take on the various gangs, whereas the Colombian government was too weak, and there were too many kids happy to kill judges and political leaders for $1000. There was also a long standing civil war out in the sticks in Colombia which added another dimension to it's problems.

[Steve Moss]

Obviously I'm not in the halls of power, but from the bulk of the American public's perspective, I believe we consider the UK to be our most reliable ally and want to reciprocate. After the UK, I suspect Israel would be no. 2.

What it boils down to is that a US president, desiring election or reelection, at least has to pretend to be a friend of the UK.

[Guest Norbert]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26323720

Meat causes dementia.............FFS they should just have a headline saying 'living is the biggest cause of death' and be done with it. I wonder if PETA paid towards this research too.

[Al]

The medical profession comes up with so much of this crap that people are starting to ignore it all. How many of us take any notice of the units of alcohol? Fags will be good for us soon.

Just kean off and let us get on with our lives.

[Steve Moss]

Seven foods which were once considered unhealthy but are now considered good for you:

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/21/7_foods_that_were_supposed_to_be_incredibly_unhealthy_%E2%80%94%C2%A0but_are_actually_anything_but_partner/

Whether its on climate, foods or any other issue, the scientific consensus is not all that its cracked up to be.

[jim mk2]

Science changes either through events or research. I would rather trust scientists than climate change deniers.

[Al]

Science changes either through events or research. I would rather trust scientists than climate change deniers.

When? Today, tomorrow or in a year when they change their minds again?

[jim mk2]

It doesn't matter when. The trouble with climate change deniers is they are becoming increasingly shrill as they lose the argument. Maybe it’s because without facts on their side, all they have is volume. But as the planet's temperatures continue to go up, you can bet the noise will too.